Playing with fire...

I understood what you were saying, but I still maintain that it is an incorrect hypothesis. When the harvest report is released I believe that we'll see that the total harvest in Montcalm will have stayed roughly the same, yet buck harvest will be up and antlerless harvest down. That doesn't strike me as being indicative that hunters are hesitant to eat venison from there. Also, for any hunters in the CWD zone concerned about their venison, there were plenty of easy ways to get it checked. Between check stations, drop off boxes, and participating taxidermists and processors - getting a clean bill of health for venison was very easy.

Anecdotally, as someone who spends a significant amount of time hunting and socializing with hunters in Montcalm county - I've encountered very few (if any?) hunters that expressed being concerned about eating diseased meat. In fact, most I know were killing deer in the disease zone and not even getting them checked.

I will agree with you that hunters as a whole value what's between a deer's ears rather than what's between their legs. Yes, hunters value bucks over does. That fact alone explains why buck kill goes up and doe kill goes down when hunters are given expanded opportunities to kill bucks. Which bets the question - how do we incentivize those buck-centric hunters to kill more does... Hmmm...

 

In other words, when they lifted the APRs, hunters did their part and eliminated those dispersing disease spreaders.

I hope you gave those hunters a pat on the back and a huge ‘atta boy’.

 

That's rich Mr. there, their, they're.

 

Experiment in a disease zone? To increase doe harvest?
There already has been a plan that worked to reduce the doe population in an area of Michigan.
Unlimited, cheap tags. It thinned out a few counties. Those counties were thinly populated by people.
Unlike the current CWD area, which is a little more populated with less access.
Experiment with $2 licenses, that worked.

 

Sounds like something I would say, yes. Here's more for you: it's widely accepted in the literature that carrot or stick is the same with respect to behavioral modification and neither truly changes the culture, because once the extrinsic motivator is removed, the behavior reverts. Culture change is a different animal and is influenced by purpose, training, education, and experience.

 

How about "Deer Management Cooperators"? What do they value?

How do you incentivize it? Give hunters inexpensive tags and easy outlets for donating the deer (they might not need). How do you reduce the likelihood of a more desirable outcome in order to compel a supposedly less desirable outcome? Restrict opportunity for the more desirable outcome. But that sure doesn't sound like a recipe for satisfaction in the short run or a sustainable outcome in the long run. Where is the victory?

 

Honestly, I believe that the solution is already in front of us via the CWD Mgt Plan.
Hire sharpshooters where necessary.

Anyone have any idea how many deer could have been removed from the trouble areas with the $300,000 or so that they plan on spending on the study to spread disease that can’t measure how much it will spread disease?

 

Including what they already have spent, and it hasn't even received a vote. I am thinking QDMA, MUCC, and Schlaybaugh don't have the votes.

The issue became too HOT, before they slipped it through. They don't want that monkey on their back if it fails, And any chance of plausible denial is gone.

Big shout out to Commissioner Chris Tracy, for making that unanounced meeting very public knowledge !

It's good to know that we have at least one Commissioner who is willing to take a stand to defend our Natural Resources

 

Add another guy to the list that "sleeps, eats and drinks QDMA". I knew it...

 

A very good post. A fork in the eye for all of us.

 

Dont let dean fool you, He sneaks around the habitat side 2 just like you

 

Thats like saying we will not test people for syphllis betwwen the ages of 20/40 for five years.

Then put out a report that people between 20/40 have no case reports of syphllis.

But data did show a rise of 50% of the syphllis disease in the testing area!

If you dont kill bucks of different age structures and have them tested. What kind of bogus test data is going to be achieved by leaving out a major carrier of the disease?

 

If 33% are a year and a half old and 33% are 2.5 and 34% are 3.5+.
Did we kill enough of each age class.

Remember. Aprs don't protect all yearlings and 4 on a side isn't very hard to find in the SLP.